MeDaZzA

I really hope you're wrong Maxbrand. I know there's high latency on the other bodies but it looks far, far worse on the S5 II. Newshooter did tests on the S5 (I) and called the latency horrible at 221ms. Gerald said the S5 II is about 1/2 a second which is well over double. that.

Same; if it's really as bad as the only review that mentioned it (Gerald Undone) then it's just completely unusable. I'm surprised none of the other reviews mentioned it though, even the ones that used it with a monitor as it would be instantly apparent and a huge flaw. Maybe it was a pre-production glitch?

I think it must just be a pre-production problem; I don't think they'd release something that's basically unusable with an external monitor, especially after all the complaints of the heavy lag on the previous cameras. Apparently subject detection is disabled at 5.9/6k over HDMI too but I could live with that.

I think the camera looks great but that 1/2 a second of HDMI latency (if it is really that as shown in the Gerald Undone video) is horrendous.

Even more confused now. I used to think it only applied to in-camera but have been told by many that this is not the case at all and it applies to any compressed RAW recording; in-camera or externally. If it was internal only, why would Atomos have had to reach a licensing agreement with Red after the threat of legal action when all their recording is external? If it does apply only to in-camera recording, I still think a battery grip recorder could be a way forward if it bypassed the patent.

I thought Cineform were the first?